ACIT-2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. THE BOMBAY DYEING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the order passed under Section 263 of the Act was quashed, the subsequent assessment order passed pursuant to it could not survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order annulling the assessment order was upheld.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) read with Section 263. The assessee appealed this order to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the assessment order could not exist as the Section 263 order it was based on had been quashed by a co-ordinate bench.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessment order passed pursuant to a Section 263 order that has been quashed is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM
Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2(1)(1), Mumbai (the learned AO) against the appellate order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ the ld. CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2015-16 dated 28th March, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed on 31st October, 2021 by NFAC, Delhi under Section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was allowed holding that when the tribunal has quashed the order passed under Section 263 of the Act, consequent order passed by the learned
Meanwhile, the learned Assessing Officer passed an assessment order pursuant to that direction under Section 263 of the Act on 31st October, 2021.
Such Assessment order was challenged before the learned CIT (A), who held that when the order under Section 263 of the Act itself has been quashed, consequential order passed by the learned Assessing Officer cannot exist and therefore, the learned CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now ld. Ao is in appeal before us against that appellate order.
After hearing the parties, we find no merit in the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer since the assessment order which was passed pursuant to order of the learned PCIT under Section 263 of the Act has already been quashed, therefore, subsequent order made on that basis cannot survive. It may be true that Revenue might have not accepted the decision of the co-ordinate Bench and has challenged it before the Hon'ble High Court. But that cannot go into the way of disposal of this appeal. Merely, because the Revenue has not accepted the decision of the co-ordinate Bench, without pointing out any material on record or submitting that Assessment order is sustainable, we are not inclined to upset the order of ld. CIT (A). We find no infirmity with the order of the learned CIT (A) in allowing the appeal of the assessee.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.09.2023.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026